The US Supreme Court holds that mere parallel conduct in a complaint is insufficient to state a claim of conspiracy under the Sherman Act (Bell Atlantic / Twombly)

In antitrust, the Supreme Court is on a roll. After giving scant attention to antitrust cases over the last two decades, the Supreme Court has now issued five substantive antitrust decisions in the last 17 months-one of the most intense periods of antitrust activity in the Court's history. And the trend of these decisions is clear: Without exception, each has made it tougher on antitrust plaintiffs in some way. The aggregate net effect on future antitrust litigation may well be quite significant. The most recent decision, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, has the potential to have the most practical importance of all these recent decisions, with potential implications for all federal civil actions. If the lower courts seize on the freedom that the Supreme Court has given them to

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Version PDF

Auteurs

Citation

John M. Majoras, Robert A. Schmoll, The US Supreme Court holds that mere parallel conduct in a complaint is insufficient to state a claim of conspiracy under the Sherman Act (Bell Atlantic / Twombly), 21 mai 2007, e-Competitions May 2007, Art. N° 33823

Visites 895

Tous les numéros

  • Latest News issue 
  • Tous les News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • Tous les Special issues